James S. Todd

When I decided to let students know what was happening to me in the political science department, I hoped that a discussion would ensue about the need to do more to reward good teaching at our university. Unfortunately, the discussion thus far has been almost entirely about me.

I hope that I can redirect the debate, and I appreciate the opportunity that the Wildcat has offered me to try to do so.

Given what has appeared in print, it may surprise people to know that I fully support the idea that research must go along with good teaching.

One of the reasons I moved from a career in law to a career in teaching was my desire to spend more of my time researching and thinking about issues and ideas that interested me.

That is what I have been doing for the last 20 years.

My teaching has benefited greatly from my research, especially the work I have done on James Madison and his theories of government.

On the other hand, I do not believe that every professor, even at a ãResearch Iä university, should have to publish.

If someone is making a major contribution as a teacher and mentor, as long as she or he is ãkeeping up to dateä in their courses, I see no need for them to publish, especially since it is going to take away from the time that they could otherwise devote to teaching and mentoring.

Furthermore, I think the rewards system should be structured in such a way that outstanding teachers and mentors receive the same recognition and pay as outstanding researchers and publishers.

This university, like most, talks a good game about valuing teaching and mentoring, but it has a sorry record, like most of academia, in terms of rewarding, retaining and promoting people on the basis of good teaching and mentoring.

Ideally, everyone would excel at both teaching and research, but not everyone does.

Why should those who excel in publishing be valued more highly than those who excel as teachers and mentors?

When and why did we decide that publishing an article is more important than getting to know a student and taking a personal interest in his or her development and achievement?

Doing more to recognize and reward teaching would have a very positive side effect.

The University of Arizona is currently engaged in a major fund-raising campaign that is of immense importance to its future.

If the university had a bigger endowment, it would be less dependent on the state Legislature and state revenues for its budget.

Everyone who cares about this institution should be contributing to the campaign.

Historically, however, UA has had a comparatively small percentage of alumni who contribute to it. I think that is a result of the fact that many students form no personal ties with faculty here.

When I think of my college ÷ that I contribute to every year ÷ I think about Bill Darrah, who took an interest in me (in a class of 100) and helped me through freshman biology (and knew my name when he saw me on campus five years later), or Mary Margaret Stewart who helped mold me into a good writer, or Bruce Boenau, the political science professor from whom I took six different courses.

Appreciation for those individuals makes me loyal to my college.

Why should students feel loyal to UA if the only professors who take the time to know their name and take a personal interest in their progress are at best denied rewards anywhere near equal to those of professors who never bothered with them, and at worst, are dismissed from the university?

I hope there will be some discussion of these issues in the days ahead, and I hope, eventually, there will be a change in the situation, not just at UA, but at schools across the country.

We owe it to all faculty who take the time to make the extra effort for their students, and we owe it most of all to the students themselves.

James S. Todd is a senior lecturer in the political science department.